Child Support Re-Child Support Re-

engineeringengineering

The Idaho Child Support The Idaho Child Support Enhanced Case Enhanced Case

Management SystemManagement System

2004>>>>>>>>2002004>>>>>>>>20066

Seven Regional Child Support Offices

State of Idaho State of Idaho

One, Single, Statewide Business

State of Idaho

Idaho’s Enhanced Idaho’s Enhanced Case Management SystemCase Management System

LSCU SECU FIDM

Enforcement Support Units – Collections, Customer

Service & Data Integrity FARU PARU RMCU SACU

CALL CNTR

ORDS Unit

P/E Units

Region 1

Region 2

Region 3

Region 4

Region 5

Region 6

Region 7

Interstate Units

Locate Unit

“Flow-through” Functions – Collections & Data integrity

Closure Unit

INIT Units

Other States

Customer contact when establishing cases – Customer Service

Core Case Management standards for Collections, Customer

Service & Data Integrity

Resources dedicated to locate services – Customer Service & Collections

Standard process for case closure –Customer Service & Data Integrity

What is re-What is re-engineering?engineering? It’s about Change (The Culture)It’s about Change (The Culture) It’s about Structure (The Organization)It’s about Structure (The Organization) It’s about Tasks (The Work)It’s about Tasks (The Work) It’s about People (The Workers)It’s about People (The Workers) It’s about Technology (Automated Systems)It’s about Technology (Automated Systems) It’s about Performance (Quality, Accuracy, It’s about Performance (Quality, Accuracy,

Timeliness, Consistency, and Timeliness, Consistency, and Standardization)Standardization)

Re-engineering is about redesigning Re-engineering is about redesigning and implementing an interconnected and implementing an interconnected

statewide business system statewide business system

Why Change?Why Change?

To Align People, Resources, and To Align People, Resources, and TechnologyTechnology

To Manage Caseload GrowthTo Manage Caseload Growth To Work Within Budget ConstraintsTo Work Within Budget Constraints To Compensate for Staffing ReductionsTo Compensate for Staffing Reductions To Meet Challenges with Hiring, To Meet Challenges with Hiring,

Training, Achieving Productivity Training, Achieving Productivity To Reduce Inefficiencies To Reduce Inefficiencies To Achieve Performance ExpectationsTo Achieve Performance Expectations To Improve Customer ServiceTo Improve Customer Service

The Need for ChangeThe Need for Change

From 1999 – 2006, Idaho’s Child Support From 1999 – 2006, Idaho’s Child Support caseload has increased each year caseload has increased each year without a proportionate increase in FTE.without a proportionate increase in FTE.– Less time available per caseLess time available per case– Less time available per customerLess time available per customer

Requires proactive management to: Requires proactive management to: – Discover and implement efficiencies Discover and implement efficiencies – Maintain high quality outputs and excellent Maintain high quality outputs and excellent

customer servicecustomer service– Effectively implement and manage changeEffectively implement and manage change

Changing the CultureChanging the Culture

Who & What Needs to Who & What Needs to Change?Change?

ManagementManagement Supervisors Supervisors Line StaffLine Staff ProcessesProcesses

Bye Bye, Case Ownership, Hello, Shared Accountability

Source: Caseload Growth – FFY yearly average received from monthly DISA download; FTE- OCSE 157 Report

Idaho Caseload Growth vs. FTE

77,516

93,435

108,432

70,434

202138 162

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

110,000

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Ca

se

loa

d

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

FT

E

IV-D Caseload FTE

Child Support Caseload Child Support Caseload to FTE Growthto FTE Growth

Structure – Structure – Organizational ChangeOrganizational Change

Management Team of 11 reduced to 5Management Team of 11 reduced to 5 7 Regional Offices Structure Redefined7 Regional Offices Structure Redefined 1 Statewide Core Case Management 1 Statewide Core Case Management

Unit Unit 13 In-House Functional Consolidated 13 In-House Functional Consolidated

UnitsUnits 2 Outsourced Functional Consolidated 2 Outsourced Functional Consolidated

UnitsUnitsSeven “States” of Idaho have Seven “States” of Idaho have become One, Single Statewide become One, Single Statewide

BusinessBusiness

One, Single, Statewide One, Single, Statewide BusinessBusiness

Organizational Organizational StructureStructure

Idaho Child Support Program

06/01/07

INCLUDED:

BO Based (Incl 2 Mgrs) 10HUB Based Prgm Mgrs 3Field Based Staff 148Legal (AAII’s) Statewide + 8

CS FTP 169

POSITIONS NOT INCLUDED:

CERMQA/QSTTrainingComplaints

Kandace YearsleySR Program

Manager & IV-D Director

Administrative Assistant

Kathleen ClarkNorthern Hub

Program ManagerService Delivery

(37 FTP)

Leslie BettyEast Hub

Program ManagerService Delivery

(51 FTP)

R4(35 FTP)

R5(15 FTP)

R3(25 FTP)

R2(14 FTP)

R1(23 FTP)

R7(15 FTP)

Supv Supv Supv Supv

21 FTP:

SRS Principal (1)SRSTRSOSpecsCSR’sTemps

13 FTP:

SRS Principal (1)SRSTRSOSpecsCSR’sTemps

14 FTP:

SRS Principal (1)SRSTRSOSpecsCSR’sTemps

13 FTP:

SRSTRSOSpecsCSR’sTemps

Supv SupvSupvSupv

Vickie VanderwerffCentral Hub

Program ManagerService Delivery

(60 FTP)

R6(21 FTP)

SupvSupv

19 FTP:

SRS Principal (1)SRSTRSOSpecsCSR’sTemps

22 FTP: SRS Principal (1)SRSTRSOspecsCSR’sTemps

SupvSupv Supv

33 FTP:

SRS Principal (2)SRSTRSOSpecsCSR’sTemps

BO StaffProgram Specialists

Admin & Clerical

Tom SerichProgram Manager

Statewide Operations

Staffing a Statewide Staffing a Statewide OperationOperation

This Statewide system is managed by a Management Team of 5 Program Managers (3 Hub Based, 2 Located in the central Business Office).

The Statewide Team - 148 Front Line Supervisors & Staff: 13 Functional Consolidated Units with a total of 74 FTP13 Functional Consolidated Units with a total of 74 FTP A Statewide Core Case Management Team with a total of 57.5 A Statewide Core Case Management Team with a total of 57.5

FTPFTP A Supervisory Team of 16.5 FTPA Supervisory Team of 16.5 FTP

With Additional Case Management Support From:

2 Consolidated Support Units under a Contract Operation – 2 Consolidated Support Units under a Contract Operation – Customer Service (CSCS), Receipting (SDU)Customer Service (CSCS), Receipting (SDU)

A Program Support Team located in the central Business Office A Program Support Team located in the central Business Office

Child Support Statewide Child Support Statewide Consolidated UnitsConsolidated Units

INIT – Case Initiation – Two Units – Coeur d’Alene & Boise (Westgate)INIT – Case Initiation – Two Units – Coeur d’Alene & Boise (Westgate) PECU – Paternity Establishment – Two Units – Coeur d’Alene & Boise PECU – Paternity Establishment – Two Units – Coeur d’Alene & Boise

(Westgate)(Westgate) LOCU – Locate - LewistonLOCU – Locate - Lewiston ISCU – Interstate – Two Units – Caldwell & LewistonISCU – Interstate – Two Units – Caldwell & Lewiston FIDM – Financial Institutions Data Match – Boise (Westgate)FIDM – Financial Institutions Data Match – Boise (Westgate) FARU – Financial Audit Review – Boise (Westgate)FARU – Financial Audit Review – Boise (Westgate) PARU – Payment Adjustment & Recovery – Twin FallsPARU – Payment Adjustment & Recovery – Twin Falls ORDS – Order Abstract & Debt Setup - PocatelloORDS – Order Abstract & Debt Setup - Pocatello LSCU – License Suspension - PocatelloLSCU – License Suspension - Pocatello SACU – Secondary Approval Unit (Adjustments) – Idaho FallsSACU – Secondary Approval Unit (Adjustments) – Idaho Falls CLOS – Case Closure – Idaho FallsCLOS – Case Closure – Idaho Falls SECU – Special Enforcement – Idaho FallsSECU – Special Enforcement – Idaho Falls RMCU – Returned Mail Consolidated Unit - LewistonRMCU – Returned Mail Consolidated Unit - Lewiston CSCS – Child Support Customer Service (Contract Unit) - BoiseCSCS – Child Support Customer Service (Contract Unit) - Boise RCTG – Payment Receipting (Contract Unit) – BoiseRCTG – Payment Receipting (Contract Unit) – Boise CCM – Core Case Management - StatewideCCM – Core Case Management - Statewide

Tasks – Defining the Tasks – Defining the WorkWork Caseload vs WorkloadCaseload vs Workload Functions vs TasksFunctions vs Tasks What is “The Work”What is “The Work” Balancing PrioritiesBalancing Priorities Managing the CaseManaging the Case Shared OwnershipShared Ownership Targeted Objectives Targeted Objectives

Caseload EqualizationCaseload Equalization

July-07Total

Caseload % of IV-D Caseload

Locate 12,310 11%

Paternity 6,732 6%

Establishment 12,692 11%

Enforcement 83,599 72%

Sub-Total 115,333 100%

Statewide Consolidated Unit

Average Caseload/FTP

Interstate Enforcement 804Paternity-Establishment 733Locate 1931Core Case Management 766

Idaho Child Support – Statewide Caseload Snapshot

Idaho Child Support - IV-D Statew ide Caseload Snapshot

11%

6%

11%

72%

Locate Paternity

Establishment Enforcement

Note: Data is a “snapshot” in time and changes on a dialy basis

Caseload vs WorkloadCaseload vs Workload

Core Case Management TeamCore Case Management Team

Average Caseload = Average Caseload = 1089/FTP1089/FTP

Average Workload = 761/FTPAverage Workload = 761/FTP

Caseload Equalization:Caseload Equalization:Core Case Core Case ManagementManagement

Core Case Management (Enforcement) Caseload July-07

Region TotalLess I/S Enforcement

Total CCMgt FTPAverage

Caseload

1 12,709

4,385

8,324 7.5

1,110

2 5,245

1,903

3,342 3

1,114

3 16,685

3,722

12,963 11

1,178

4 19,739

4,505

15,234 14.5

1,051

5 11,029

2,302

8,727 8

1,091

6 9,618

1,892

7,726 7.5

1,030

7 8,574

1,708

6,866 6.5

1,056

TOTAL 83,599

20,417

63,182 58

1,089

Workload Equalization:Workload Equalization:Core Case Core Case ManagementManagement

Statewide Core Case Management (Enforcement) FTP Allocation & Workload July-07

Location of FTP

# of Total FTP for Unit

% FTP Allocated Enfo

FTP Allocated ENFC Wk Caseload Workload

CCMgt 58 100% 58

INIT* 7 43% 3    

FARU 4 75% 3.00    

FIDM* 1.5 75% 1.13    

PARU 4.8 75% 3.60    

ORDS 7 75% 5.25    

LSCU* 4 75% 3.00    

SECU* 2 75% 1.50    

SLOA * 2 75% 1.50    

CLOS 3 67% 2    

LOCU 3.25 28% 1    

TOTAL     82.98 63,182 761

People – The WorkersPeople – The Workers

Participation in the PlanningParticipation in the Planning Matching Skills to AssignmentsMatching Skills to Assignments Offering ChoicesOffering Choices No Involuntary TransfersNo Involuntary Transfers No LayoffsNo Layoffs No ReclassificationsNo Reclassifications

Technology – Technology – Automated SystemsAutomated Systems Processes defined Automation (Pre-Processes defined Automation (Pre-

1996) 1996) Automation redefined Processes (1996)Automation redefined Processes (1996) Redefining Processes to Maximize use of Redefining Processes to Maximize use of

available Automated Systems (1996 to available Automated Systems (1996 to Present)Present)

Enhancing Systems to Support Enhancing Systems to Support Processes (1996 to Present)Processes (1996 to Present)

Implementing New Systems & Implementing New Systems & Technologies (Now and into the Future)Technologies (Now and into the Future)

Performance – Quality Performance – Quality OutcomesOutcomes

AccuracyAccuracy TimelinessTimeliness ConsistencyConsistency StandardizationStandardization

Quality Outcomes = Quality Customer Service

Total ORDS Volume and Timeliness

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

Oct-06 Nov-06 Dec-06 Jan-07 Feb-07 Mar-07 Apr-07 May-07 Jun-07

Vo

lum

e

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Day

s

Total Orders Timeliness

Performance Metrics: ORDS Unit

(Order Abstract & Debt Setup

Performance Metrics: ORDS Performance Metrics: ORDS unitunit

Reviews Completed

Accuracy Rate

Debt Type

Manual Alerts Narrative

Data Integrity

Policy Issues

Oct-06 282 98.2%Nov-06 182 98.9% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%Dec-06 159 99.4%Jan-07 227 98.7% 33.3% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3%Feb-07 74 100.0%Mar-07 71 98.6% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%Apr-07 52 98.1% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

FFY 07 Total 1,050 98.7% 71.4% 14.3% 0.0% 0.0% 14.3%

Accuracy Rate Percentage of Total Errrors

UNIT PERFORMANCE FFY 2007

ORDS UNIT QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEWSFFY 2007

INTERSTATE

Performance Performance Improvement: Order Improvement: Order Abstract & Debt SetupAbstract & Debt Setup Prior to Re-engineering – it took 6 to 8 Prior to Re-engineering – it took 6 to 8

weeksweeks to get an order setup on the to get an order setup on the system, delayed collections, system, delayed collections, increased arrears, inconsistent data increased arrears, inconsistent data entryentry

After Re-Engineering – 5 to 15 After Re-Engineering – 5 to 15 daysdays to to get an order setup on the system, get an order setup on the system, more timely collections, containment more timely collections, containment of arrears, consistent data entry of arrears, consistent data entry

High PerformanceHigh Performance

From July 2006 through June 2007 From July 2006 through June 2007 most of the functional most of the functional consolidated units are exceeding consolidated units are exceeding performance goalsperformance goals

Averaging 96-99% AccuracyAveraging 96-99% AccuracyAveraging 96-100% Averaging 96-100% Timeliness Timeliness

Performance Improvement:Performance Improvement:2006 Idaho Child Support 2006 Idaho Child Support Federal Self-Assessment ReportFederal Self-Assessment Report

Performance Summary 2006

Functional AreaFFY 2004

FFY 2005

FFY 2006 Goal

Closures 93% 92% 99% 90%

Establishment of Orders 79% 88% 91% 75%

Expedited Process (12-Month Standard)

100% 100% 100% 90%

Expedited Process (6-Month Standard)

95% 98% 98% 75%

Enforcement of Financial Orders

98% 97% 95% 75%

Enforcement of Medical Orders

96% 98% 97% 75%

Modifications (case review and adjustment)

86% 99% 99% 75%

Interstate Cases 84% 92% 98% 75%

Disbursements 100% 99% 100% 75%

Source Data: PSI FFY 2006 OCSE State Report – State Distribution

Cost Effectiveness Ratio

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

$3.00

$3.50

$4.00

$4.50

$5.00

$5.50

$6.00

$6.50

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Idaho National Average

Cost EffectivenessCost Effectiveness

Staffing, Training & Staffing, Training & Achieving Performance Achieving Performance GoalsGoals Cultivating Experts vs Expecting Cultivating Experts vs Expecting

Everyone to Know EverythingEveryone to Know Everything Ramp-up Time to Achieve Productivity Ramp-up Time to Achieve Productivity

Goals Reduced – Days & Weeks vs Goals Reduced – Days & Weeks vs Months & YearsMonths & Years

Recruiting & Hiring for Specific Skills vs Recruiting & Hiring for Specific Skills vs General QualificationsGeneral Qualifications

Specialized Training for Functions & Specialized Training for Functions & TasksTasks

Case Ownership vs Shared AccountabilityCase Ownership vs Shared Accountability

Planning & Planning & ImplementationImplementationDevelop a Comprehensive PlanDevelop a Comprehensive Plan

Identify & Include All StakeholdersIdentify & Include All Stakeholders Collect DataCollect Data Define ObjectivesDefine Objectives Draft the PlanDraft the Plan Test Pilot Projects/Gather DataTest Pilot Projects/Gather Data Refine and Implement “The Plan”Refine and Implement “The Plan” Implementation - Big Bang vs Staged Implementation - Big Bang vs Staged

TransitionTransition Monitor & Measure ResultsMonitor & Measure Results Refine Processes - Continuous & OngoingRefine Processes - Continuous & Ongoing

For More InformationFor More Information

ContactContact

Tom SerichTom Serich

Program Manager, Statewide OperationsProgram Manager, Statewide Operations

Idaho Child Support ServicesIdaho Child Support Services

State of Idaho – Department of Health & WelfareState of Idaho – Department of Health & Welfare

450 West State St – 2450 West State St – 2ndnd Floor Floor

Boise, ID 83701Boise, ID 83701

Ph: 208-334-6545 Email: Ph: 208-334-6545 Email: sericht@dhw.idaho.govsericht@dhw.idaho.gov